Settlement and settling disputes

Many disputes are settled. We have produced several Practice Notes and Precedents to guide you through the process of considering and conducting settlement negotiations, making different kinds of offer to settle, and drafting and interpreting settlement agreements.

For detailed guidance and Precedents on Part 36 offers, see: Part 36 offers—overview. For detailed guidance on the various forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including mediation, see: ADR and dispute resolution clauses—overview and Mediation—overview and related content.

The need to seek to settle disputes

Integral to a dispute resolution lawyer’s work is achieving the settlement of disputes. In addition to the client’s own internal drivers such as relationship preservation and avoiding wasting management time, there are civil justice system drivers, not least of which are costs pressures and penalties, working to encourage parties to at least attempt to settle their disputes.

For detailed guidance on why you should actively consider settlement prospects when advising your clients with disputes, when settlement may be possible and should certainly be considered, including the consequences of failing to engage in settlement attempts, see Practice Notes:

•
Settling disputes—what, when and why settle?

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Ministry of Justice sets new personal injury discount rate at positive 0.5%

The Lord Chancellor, Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, has announced a new personal injury discount rate of positive 0.5% for England and Wales, to be effective from 11 January 2025. This new rate will be applied when calculating lump sum compensation payments for future financial losses in personal injury cases. The Lord Chancellor concluded that it would be inappropriate to adopt a dual or multiple rate at this review and that the rate should be set at a single rate of positive 0.5%. This decision follows a comprehensive review process under the Damages Act 1996, which included two Calls for Evidence, consultation with statutory consultees and evidence from an independent expert panel. A Statutory Instrument will be laid in Parliament to implement this change. A full statement of reasons has been made available.

UT considers taxpayer’s application for permanent anonymity and third party disclosure request (HMRC v The Taxpayer and Others)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) rejected a taxpayer’s application for permanent anonymity, following the taxpayer's decision to withdraw their substantive appeal with the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT). The UT further granted a third party limited access to the FTT’s previous case management decision. The UT’s decision emphasises the importance placed on open justice and highlights the court and tribunals’ reluctance to permit anonymity in litigation. Written by Helen McGhee, Partner, and Megan Durnford, Associate, at Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP.

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—28 November 2024

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes expert analyses of the CJC’s final report on Pre-Action Protocols and the MoJ’s statutory review of whiplash injury regulations. We bring you details of the 175th Practice Direction update and the DHSC’s findings from the call for evidence on the statutory duty of candour. We also include our usual roundup of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

Reforming the Personal Injury Pre-Action Protocols

Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence analysis: The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has concluded its extensive review of the various existing pre-action protocols (PAPs). Here we focus specifically on the Personal Injury PAPs.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News